←back to thread

Anthropic judge rejects $1.5B AI copyright settlement

(news.bloomberglaw.com)
290 points nobody9999 | 3 comments | 09 Sep 25 08:46 UTC | HN request time: 0.437s | source
Show context
jawns ◴[09 Sep 25 19:02 UTC] No.45187038[source]▶
I'm an author, and I've confirmed that 3 of my books are in the 500K dataset.

Thus, I stand to receive about $9,000 as a result of this settlement.

I think that's fair, considering that two of those books received advances under $20K and never earned out. Also, while I'm sure that Anthropic has benefited from training its models on this dataset, that doesn't necessarily mean that those models are a lasting asset.

replies(22): >>45187319 #>>45187366 #>>45187519 #>>45187839 #>>45188602 #>>45189683 #>>45189684 #>>45190184 #>>45190223 #>>45190237 #>>45190555 #>>45190731 #>>45191633 #>>45192016 #>>45192191 #>>45192348 #>>45192404 #>>45192630 #>>45193043 #>>45195516 #>>45201246 #>>45218895 #
visarga ◴[09 Sep 25 19:32 UTC] No.45187519[source]▶
How is it fair? Do you expect 9,000 from Google, Meta, OpenAI, and everyone else? Were your books imitated by AI?

Infringement was supposed to imply substantial similarity. Now it is supposed to mean statistical similarity?

replies(4): >>45187577 #>>45187677 #>>45187811 #>>45187853 #
gruez ◴[09 Sep 25 19:35 UTC] No.45187577[source]▶
>Were your books imitated by AI?

Given that books can be imitated by humans with no compensation, this isn't as strong as an argument as you think. Moreover AFAIK the training itself has been ruled legal, so Anthropic could have theoretically bought the book for $20 (or whatever) and be in the clear, which would obviously bring less revenue than the $9k settlement.

replies(2): >>45187621 #>>45188044 #
1. arduanika ◴[09 Sep 25 20:06 UTC] No.45188044[source]▶
Machines aren't people.
replies(1): >>45188139 #
2. gruez ◴[09 Sep 25 20:11 UTC] No.45188139[source]▶
They're not, but that's a red herring given that humans vs machines is not a relevant factor in current copyright statues or case law. Short of new laws being passed or activist judges ruling otherwise, it'll remain this way.
replies(1): >>45189877 #
3. snowe2010 ◴[09 Sep 25 22:00 UTC] No.45189877[source]▶
But whether or not it is a machine _is_ relevant in current copyright law. https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/federal-court-rules-arti...